News


Election results: Measure D and Measure E

 

Election results for Palo Alto's Measure D and Measure E. Information from the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters. (Majority vote wins)

Measure D (Shall Article V of the Palo Alto City Charter be repealed in its entirety, eliminating the requirement that public safety employee disputes be resolved through binding interest arbitration?)

Yes: 7,997

No: 3,889

33/33 precincts reporting

Measure E: (Shall 10 acres of existing parkland in Byxbee Park be undedicated for the exclusive purpose of building a processing facility for yard trimmings, food waste and other organic material?)

Yes: 7,713

No: 4,267

33/33 precincts reporting

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Kurt
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 8, 2011 at 11:06 pm

Glad it looks like measure E will pass.

Palo Alto has a long history of success in providing better service levels at lower and more stable prices by building those services right in Palo Alto.

I have heard about coming technologies that can improve the methane output of anaerobic digestion by 300%. This would change the financial dynamics and benefits of owning this in a BIG way.

Anaerobic digestion will remove other waste processes that are damaging to the environment and with new developments, it would generate a huge amount of fuel that Palo Alto can use.


Like this comment
Posted by Solon
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 9, 2011 at 12:05 am

Sorry E passed, just means more wasted time and money on
UNTRIED and
UNNECESSARY and
EXPENSIVE technology that does not yet exist

Palo ALto is not a venture capital start up, if such an unproven, experimental project it is built with 100% private money and 100% private risk or glory, fine.

But it is imprudent and immoral to use public funds in this manner.

It makes more sense, now that it has passed, to be patient, to until three other facilities are built and operating economical and without toxic pollutants and without environmental damage, then and only then to buy in.

Such a project should not be built with public funds. Too risky. Too ex pensive. Unnecessary.
.


Like this comment
Posted by wrong about lower price
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Nov 9, 2011 at 6:11 am

I happened somewhere about 10 years ago that Palo Utilities became the most expensive utility in the Bay Area. Long are the days we could brag CPAU electric and gas rates were lower than PG&E. There is competition and buying in bulk and small utilities pay the ultimate price. Overall right now the price disparity continue to enlarge to more than 15% and growing.
Pro E was a bad move but people choose to do this research. I hope ultimately I decide not to build anything in the bay Lands.


Like this comment
Posted by ST
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 9, 2011 at 6:22 am

Harrisburg, the capital of Pennsylvania, is now in bankruptcy because of a similar program. The proponents claimed that it would save a lot of money, but it ended up costing hundreds of millions of dollars, which the city have.


Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Meadow Park
on Nov 9, 2011 at 7:58 am

Good grief... a town of 80,000, assume at least 1/2 are voting age..and only 12,000 voted?????

Very sad


Like this comment
Posted by Don't want to pay
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Nov 9, 2011 at 9:07 am

All those who voted "yes" on Measure E should pay the $250 Million to build the anarobic digester.

All those who voted against "the factory" should be given a rebate on their Sewage bill.


Like this comment
Posted by Marie
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 9, 2011 at 12:00 pm

Marie is a registered user.

Per the 2010 census, Palo Alto had 64,403 residents - probably a bit more now (I checked wikipedia's numbers on another occasion and they are correct).

Web Link

Per the CA Dept. of State in Feb 2011, Palo Alto had 35,765 registered voters.

Web Link
(click on the final report: Registration by Political Subdivision by County

Almost 12,000 voted, mostly by mail, which I think is really high for an off-year election, esp. since the city council and school district elections have moved to even years. I'm sure it is always a consideration when putting together a measure whether it will do better with a smaller or larger election. In a larger election, you get a lot more voters, but a lot of local issues don't get much publicity.

In any case, I'm pleased with the outcomes as it gives the city council of Palo Alto more choices. Now if someone would come up with a proposal to dissolve the HSRA and move the project under the state department of transportation, we could reduce a lot of administrative overhead and, IMHO, get better decisions as the state employees would still have a job no matter how or if the project is completed.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

He said – she said – who is lying? Justice Brett Kavanaugh or PA resident Christine Ford
By Diana Diamond | 69 comments | 6,737 views

Let's Talk Internships
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 2 comments | 1,053 views

Couples: Sex and Connection (Chicken or Egg?)
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 914 views

Populism: A response to the failure of the elites: Palo Alto edition
By Douglas Moran | 1 comment | 910 views

Zucchini Takeover
By Laura Stec | 1 comment | 812 views